4 ms·

> Chenoweth and Stephan collected data on all violent and nonviolent campaigns from 1900 to 2006 that resulted in the overthrow of a government or in territoria

> Chenoweth and Stephan collected data on all violent and nonviolent campaigns from 1900 to 2006 that resulted in the overthrow of a government or in territorial liberation. They created a data set of 323 mass actions. Chenoweth analyzed nearly 160 variables related to success criteria, participant categories, state capacity, and more. The results turned her earlier paradigm on its head — in the aggregate, nonviolent civil resistance was far more effective in producing change. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolen...

dorfsmay 7y ago
This make sense intuitively: governments are better armed than the people (militarized police, military). If guns are used in a conflict between the people and a government, the government will crush the people immediately. On the other hand, enough protests and civil disobedience will disrupt the economy and the functioning of the government to the point they will have to react, or resign. I am not American and haven't studied the U.S. history, but the cynic in me cannot help but wonder if the 2nd amendment is kept to let people think they are protected from tyranny while not fighting back any laws and unfair policies. When was the last time a law or policy was successfully fought and turned around in the U.S.?
- gruez 7y ago
  >When was the last time a law or policy was successfully fought and turned around in the U.S.? Prohibition Civil rights act Roe v Wade Gay marriage Marijuana legalization
  - dorfsmay 7y ago
    Good list! I had not thought of those. In which of those was the 2nd amendment used? Having said that, weren't those slow change of the laws? I was thinking more about forceful events like the opposition to the Vietnam war, the yellow jackets in France, or what's going on in Hongkong right now.
    - Junk_Collector 7y ago
      Why would the US population result to armed rebellion when it has a robust and largely functioning method of altering policy?
      - dorfsmay 7y ago
        Are the existing methods to change policies good enough? Are they good enough for the case where the government is forceful and not listening to the people? How much longer would have the Vietnam war lasted if it weren't for large scale marches? How many people's life got ruined because of marijuana laws for decades. Could have this been avoided with better ways to address harsh laws? Are there really no law today that are almost universally hated, but kept on the book because of lobbying by companies or vocal minority groups?
  - dayofthedaleks 7y ago
    None of those fights had a Second Amendment angle, except possibly the Black Panthers' demonstrations carrying rifles. Those events instead resulted in California gun control laws being created more than contributing to the Civil Rights Act's passage.
    - homonculus1 7y ago
      Which is evidence that the government really does start to scared when armed citizens speak up for their rights.
- dayofthedaleks 7y ago
  It's arguable the Appalachian coal industry wouldn't have been unionized without armed agitation, but that may be unique to the region and the mine owners' eagerness to employ Pinkerton gunmen. I'd say the last time armed resistance had direct impact on law was the abolition of slavery. Most specifically John Brown's taking of a federal armory in 1859. It didn't end well for Brown, his sons, or the freed slaves involved. It did, however, cause a polarization of public sentiment that accelerated the approach of civil war. Only after the other side was ground to paste was legislation changed nationwide. To the commentors making a Vietnam analogy - short of storming federal installations ourselves, from whom are we to get the military-grade weaponry to put up any kind of resistance? Russia?
  - TheCoelacanth 7y ago
    You could just as easily use the American Civil War as a example of armed resistance being ineffective. One of the largest armed resistances in history (the CSA) and it ended up achieving the exact opposite of its aims.
- Junk_Collector 7y ago
  Like, a couple of weeks ago? Unpopular or unconstitutional laws and policies are frequently overturned in the US at the national and state level.

dorfsmay 7y ago

This make sense intuitively: governments are better armed than the people (militarized police, military). If guns are used in a conflict between the people and a government, the government will crush the people immediately. On the other hand, enough protests and civil disobedience will disrupt the economy and the functioning of the government to the point they will have to react, or resign. I am not American and haven't studied the U.S. history, but the cynic in me cannot help but wonder if the 2nd amendment is kept to let people think they are protected from tyranny while not fighting back any laws and unfair policies. When was the last time a law or policy was successfully fought and turned around in the U.S.?

gruez 7y ago
>When was the last time a law or policy was successfully fought and turned around in the U.S.? Prohibition Civil rights act Roe v Wade Gay marriage Marijuana legalization
- dorfsmay 7y ago
  Good list! I had not thought of those. In which of those was the 2nd amendment used? Having said that, weren't those slow change of the laws? I was thinking more about forceful events like the opposition to the Vietnam war, the yellow jackets in France, or what's going on in Hongkong right now.
  - Junk_Collector 7y ago
    Why would the US population result to armed rebellion when it has a robust and largely functioning method of altering policy?
    - dorfsmay 7y ago
      Are the existing methods to change policies good enough? Are they good enough for the case where the government is forceful and not listening to the people? How much longer would have the Vietnam war lasted if it weren't for large scale marches? How many people's life got ruined because of marijuana laws for decades. Could have this been avoided with better ways to address harsh laws? Are there really no law today that are almost universally hated, but kept on the book because of lobbying by companies or vocal minority groups?
- dayofthedaleks 7y ago
  None of those fights had a Second Amendment angle, except possibly the Black Panthers' demonstrations carrying rifles. Those events instead resulted in California gun control laws being created more than contributing to the Civil Rights Act's passage.
  - homonculus1 7y ago
    Which is evidence that the government really does start to scared when armed citizens speak up for their rights.
dayofthedaleks 7y ago
It's arguable the Appalachian coal industry wouldn't have been unionized without armed agitation, but that may be unique to the region and the mine owners' eagerness to employ Pinkerton gunmen. I'd say the last time armed resistance had direct impact on law was the abolition of slavery. Most specifically John Brown's taking of a federal armory in 1859. It didn't end well for Brown, his sons, or the freed slaves involved. It did, however, cause a polarization of public sentiment that accelerated the approach of civil war. Only after the other side was ground to paste was legislation changed nationwide. To the commentors making a Vietnam analogy - short of storming federal installations ourselves, from whom are we to get the military-grade weaponry to put up any kind of resistance? Russia?
- TheCoelacanth 7y ago
  You could just as easily use the American Civil War as a example of armed resistance being ineffective. One of the largest armed resistances in history (the CSA) and it ended up achieving the exact opposite of its aims.
Junk_Collector 7y ago
Like, a couple of weeks ago? Unpopular or unconstitutional laws and policies are frequently overturned in the US at the national and state level.